Creative pushed Steve Jobs to armor up for the smartphone patent war

The current smartphone patent wars are an economic and philosophic minefield, with many of the top tech companies suing each other, and tech aficionados sounding the call to reform or banish patents altogether. But why did Apple file over 200 patent applications for its iPhone-related technology, and decide to go "thermonuclear" when other smartphone makers allegedly "copied" the iPhone? According to the New York Times, it seems that the sting of paying $100 million to a former competitor to license a user interface patent for Apple's iconic iPod inspired former Apple CEO Steve Jobs to "patent it all" with respect to the iPhone.

In the early days of MP3 players, from the late '90s up until the early '00s, Creative Technology was one of the top makers. When Apple released the first iPod in 2001, Slashdot founder Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda compared it to Creative's established Nomad line. His infamous eight-word review: "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."

But earlier that year, Creative applied for a user interface patent for its upcoming "Zen" MP3 players, which had a passing similarity to the iPod's hierarchical track list navigation. When that patent was granted by the US Patent and Trademark Office in 2006, Creative promptly filed a lawsuit against Apple, which had quickly grown to dominate the portable music player market with an 80 percent market share.

Apple quickly settled the lawsuit just a few months later, striking a $100 million licensing deal with Creative. "Creative is very fortunate to have been granted this early patent," Jobs said in a statement released in 2006.

That $100 million dollars didn't ultimately make any serious dent in Apple's bottom line, but to Jobs it was a wake up call. According to one former Apple executive that spoke to the New York Times, Jobs assembled his senior managers and told them that for the iPhone—in 2006, still in development as the secret "Project Purple"— Apple was "going to patent it all."

"His attitude was that if someone at Apple can dream it up, then we should apply for a patent, because even if we never build it, it’s a defensive tool," former Apple general counsel Nancy Heinen told NYT. "Even if we knew it wouldn't get approved, we would file the application anyway. If nothing else, it prevents another company from trying to patent the idea."

Jobs claimed during the iPhone's introduction in January 2007 that Apple had filed for over 200 patents related to the iPhone's design and technology. And Apple repeatedly warned that it would "not stand for having our IP ripped off," before launching a lawsuit against Android smartphone maker HTC in 2010.

The legal fight over smartphones now includes Samsung, Sony, RIM, LG, Motorola, and Google, among others, and takes place in courts all over the globe. Google Vice President for Corporate Development David Lawee described Apple's recent $1 billion patent infringement verdict against Samsung as the company's own "wake-up call," noting that Google "didn't really believe 'rounded corners' were patentable." Jobs likely had a similar moment in 2006, when Creative came knocking with its "Zen Patent" that covered a "plurality of tracks accessed according to a hierarchy."

If I wasn't a fan of Apple before(And I am not on any level), this whole "I'll sue you til the wheels fall off!" mentality and the way the media is feeding into it has just become one huge ass whip. Go ahead (Cr)Apple, keep it up, the more you act like this, the more you show your true colors.

Millions upon millions of users buy Apple's products every year. Apple is the biggest technology company in the world. The Law, as it stands right now, is on Apple's side with regard to patents. The plan going forward for any company is this: either design around Apple's patents or license from them. It is advisable to not poke the sleeping dragon.

EDIT: Guessing there are lot of people that don't like being faced with the truth regarding how the law stands and what the obvious solution is right this instant. Changing the way the patent system works will takes years if not decades.

"Even if we knew it wouldn't get approved, we would file the application anyway. If nothing else, it prevents another company from trying to patent the idea."

Wow.

That's pretty much how the patent system works. (As far as rounded corners go, it's just a proxy for the "appley-ness" that they really want to fight over.) Even Red Hat has been collecting patents. Welcome to the USA.

Incidentally, you also see patents involved in legal action against GPL code because the proprietary companies don't want to undermine the copyright protections that give the GPL teeth. (If there was any doubt it would hold up in court, someone would have taken it to court by now and built a credible case: some two of MS/SCO/IBM/Novell/RedHat.) Thus, patents make an attractive alternative weapon.

"Even if we knew it wouldn't get approved, we would file the application anyway. If nothing else, it prevents another company from trying to patent the idea."

Wow.

Actually, this is the best option, not an asshole move. If anyone (eg Apple) gets refused, then someone else can't get theirs pushed through with some other review officer- this makes a record of both prior art and unpatentability. Better that than anyone assuming its unpatentable and then finding out it is later (i.e. Google).

Not that I agree with any of the patents being used to block competitors, but this is a hackjob revisionist history at best. You've made it out to seem that Creative filed this patent independently, and Apple was caught completely off guard. You've completely left out the part that Apple approached Creative when they were first building the ipod so that they could work together on it. Apple was given a show and tell of Creative's interface which they then stole and implemented in their own players after the collaboration fell through. This is not independent creation. This is Xerox PARC, but this time Apple didn't license the technology they were taking and that's why they paid up so quickly. I can't help, but think the author is either incredibly lazy or incredibly biased towards Apple because nothing in the article even approaches the reality of the situation.

Not that I agree with any of the patents being used to block competitors, but this is a hackjob revisionist history at best. You've made it out to seem that Creative filed this patent independently, and Apple was caught completely off guard. You've completely left out the part that Apple approached Creative when they were first building the ipod so that they could work together on it. Apple was given a show and tell of Creative's interface which they then stole and implemented in their own players after the collaboration fell through. This is not independent creation. This is Xerox PARC, but this time Apple didn't license the technology they were taking and that's why they paid up so quickly. I can't help, but think the author is either incredibly lazy or incredibly biased towards Apple because nothing in the article even approaches the reality of the situation.

If I wasn't a fan of Apple before(And I am not on any level), this whole "I'll sue you til the wheels fall off!" mentality and the way the media is feeding into it has just become one huge ass whip. Go ahead (Cr)Apple, keep it up, the more you act like this, the more you show your true colors.

Wait…because Google, Microsoft, Samsung, Nokia, and Motorola are all doing the same exact thing? It's not just Apple- it's Big Software. IBM, Oracle, SAP, they are all patenting the crap of whatever they can. The only difference is that Apple is one of the most publicly visible companies because every other person has a device in their hands. Don't kid yourself that this is only an Apple philosophy.

"Even if we knew it wouldn't get approved, we would file the application anyway. If nothing else, it prevents another company from trying to patent the idea."

Wow.

Actually, this is the best option, not an asshole move. If anyone (eg Apple) gets refused, then someone else can't get theirs pushed through with some other review officer- this makes a record of both prior art and unpatentability. Better that than anyone assuming its unpatentable and then finding out it is later (i.e. Google).

Plus it’s standard practice. There’s no "good" or "bad" guys here, no matter how much certain simpletons want an easy explanation like that.

It‘s a game every one is forced to play, as Apple found out with Creative in this example and Google found out with Apple and Android with regards to smartphones.

And before anyone goes off on how "bad" patents are; they do serve a purpose, they are just "badly implemented". Considering how much monetary damages and other compensations are dependant on the system, it’s surprising that it doesn’t get more attention outside geeky circles and that there are no tangible, worldwide efforts to optimize it.

Shortening expiration dates for software and (computer) hardware patents would be a nice first step, crowdsourcing discovery and prior art might be another step worth considering. Educating the public would help, too, as most people talk about the whole situation on a very emotional level. People either love or hate Apple, Google, Samsung, etc. but don’t even spend one minute trying to understand what’s actually going on.

It’s actually very frustrating to hear as many generic retarded anti-patent slogans being shouted all over the place, because it makes any sensible discussion impossible. And a sensible discourse is what’s currently needed, imo, so that the public can demand change based on informed opinions, not irrational feelings towards specific companies.

Not that I agree with any of the patents being used to block competitors, but this is a hackjob revisionist history at best. You've made it out to seem that Creative filed this patent independently, and Apple was caught completely off guard. You've completely left out the part that Apple approached Creative when they were first building the ipod so that they could work together on it. Apple was given a show and tell of Creative's interface which they then stole and implemented in their own players after the collaboration fell through. This is not independent creation. This is Xerox PARC, but this time Apple didn't license the technology they were taking and that's why they paid up so quickly. I can't help, but think the author is either incredibly lazy or incredibly biased towards Apple because nothing in the article even approaches the reality of the situation.

The original iPod's navigational hierarchy was based on the NextStep column view- which has been around since the 80's and still exists in Mac OS X & iOS.

Rounded corners are functional, not cosmetic. What other shape fits best into a front jeans pocket? It's driven by engineering, not aesthetics, and absolutely should not be patentable, any more than the shape of a pill should be patentable.

My turntable, cassette deck, 8-Track and open-reel recorders all play a plurality of tracks accessed according to a hierarchy.

Sincerely,Mr. Obvious.

Your turnable, cassette deck, 8 track player, and open reel recorders likely do not display track listings via a user interface do they? The user interface of all those devices consists of analog user input and there is no visual data display about the tracks, their order, or any hierarchy. There also is no hierarchy to any of those devices. They all just will play single lists of tracks, in whatever order they happen to exist on the media. A record playing juke box holds more similarities, as it features a visual UI for going through albums and tracks, which is more of a hierarchy since your root node is at the collection of albums level, not single albums.

Not siding with Apple/Creative, but I don't see how your comparison fits.

Rounded corners are functional, not cosmetic. What other shape fits best into a front jeans pocket? It's driven by engineering, not aesthetics, and absolutely should not be patentable, any more than the shape of a pill should be patentable.

Engineering is not patentable? I wonder how companies building motor engines see that…

My turntable, cassette deck, 8-Track and open-reel recorders all play a plurality of tracks accessed according to a hierarchy.

Sincerely,Mr. Obvious.

Seriously, if you research a bit, you find that Apple was trying to sue Creative for the same thing at the time and the only reason that Creative won was because of the patent. Not to mention that Creative had a nano player out before the Apple Nano, and it seems that Apple named it that just for spite. Since "Nano" is a common term and cannot be copywritten.

Apple has employed these sue you till it hurts and you give up tactics for a very long time. They are not any better than any other company.

If no one breaks the cycle (and given the current patent situation you'd have to be altruistic and foolish - see Google in the past) and that corporations are basically required to act like socio/psychopaths then I don't see much hope in the near term. Hopefully one day sanity will prevail...

It's bizarre that so many people in tech whine when companies use patents, simply because they don't like patents and wish they didn't exist. To a company doing business in the real world, it doesn't matter whether you like patents (or even whether they like them). All that matters is that this is the system that politicians have put into place. The companies have to play the game by the rules that Congress and the courts dictate (in the U.S.). If you want to get rid of the patent system, it's perfectly reasonable to advocate that it goes away. It's insane to pretend that companies shouldn't take advantage of the rules as they presently exist. Your whims have nothing to do with law.

It’s actually very frustrating to hear as many generic retarded anti-patent slogans being shouted all over the place, because it makes any sensible discussion impossible. And a sensible discourse is what’s currently needed, imo, so that the public can demand change based on informed opinions, not irrational feelings towards specific companies.

I don't see why, there aren't any in the article to begin with. Linking back to your site's own lackluster coverage isn't citation and probably why this article is so poor to begin with. Nor do I particularly care to do a bunch of research for the author (who should have done it already) or you who are too lazy to look for yourself. For anyone who might actually care about the situation, go back and read through the articles from back then for yourself. You'll find exactly what I said.[/quote]

No, you're the one making the assertion; the onus is on YOU to provide backup for that assertion.

It’s actually very frustrating to hear as many generic retarded anti-patent slogans being shouted all over the place, because it makes any sensible discussion impossible. And a sensible discourse is what’s currently needed, imo, so that the public can demand change based on informed opinions, not irrational feelings towards specific companies.

Similar thoughts when the Pirate party is being discussed.

Yup, pretty much. It’s all one big "If you’re not with us, you’re against us!" circus…